ON HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 37 
allowed to do as much mischief as he likes until mankind 
irresponsibly disposes of him by Lynch law. 
I am old enough to remember when a political legal 
luminary, who passed for a great man till he outlived his 
reputation, invented for party purposes the maxim that 
“Man is not responsible for his belief,” meaning his religious 
creed. Probably those who found the maxim useful never 
reflected that, if vat dogma meant what it said, it was flatly 
contrary to the Bible, which the inventor did not repudiate 
at all, to do him justice, whatever his successors do now. I 
suppose they really meant that one man is not responsible to 
others for his religious belief. But that depends altogether 
on whether his belief generally produces actions injurious to 
them or not, of which they must be the judges and not him- 
self, And though it may seem plausible a prior to say that 
abstract religious opimions not necessarily involving conduct 
towards others must be innocent and cannot produce actions 
affecting other people, all the history and present experience 
of the world contradict that a priori conclusion. Religious 
opinion has notoriously produced greater and often worse 
effects upon mankind than even the lust of money or of 
conquest, or grosser lusts. It is needless to spend time in 
giving proofs of a proposition which nobody is likely to 
deny, and of which we sce ample proof daily. The lazy 
indifference of these days may not choose to see what is 
transparent to all who are not indifferent to everything but 
their immediate comfort, or to physical or sentimental evils 
which stare them in the face: and they may try to evade 
the question by the easy cant of “ refusing to believe ” that 
the same causes and motives which have disturbed the 
world before, whenever they became strong enough, will do 
sO again as soon as those who are moved by them are strong 
enough again. 
But the responsibility of men to society is not the subject 
of this inquiry. It is future responsibility, though that is 
not expressed in the title of the paper. Freedom of opinion, 
until it develops into actions hostile to society, is unquestion- 
able now in all countries which have escaped from priestiy 
and political tyranny. What they have to guard against 1s 
the danger of falling under it again, which is greater than 
indifferentists choose to recognise. But all this time the 
ledger of responsibility is posted up daily with unfailing 
accuracy somewhere. Even materialists admit and assert 
that nothing is forgotten by nature: the smallest act propa- 
gates some consequences to the remotest time. No doubt 
